Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 194 (UTT)

SATENDRA KUMAR MEHTA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2007-04-18

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings in criminal case No. 395 of 2005, relating to offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C., pending before the II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. From the perusal of the papers on record, it appears that a first information report was lodged by respondent No. 2 on 03.09.2001 (copy Annexure-11 to the petition), in which it was alleged that on 31.08.2001, at about 11:45 P.M., in the court premises accused/applicants Satendra Kumar Mehta and Manish Kumar Mehta gave a threat to the complainant of dire consequences if the case instituted against them earlier is not withdrawn. It appears that a crime No. 172 of 2001 was registered on basis of aforesaid report with police station Ranipur, District Haridwar. After investigation, no offence were found made out against the accused (present petitioners) and a final report was submitted on 10.10.2001, by the Investigating Officer. Learned Magistrate issued notices to respondent No. 2 (complainant), who filed the protest petition, on which the accused / petitioners were summoned in respect of offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C., and a criminal case No. 395 of 2005 is registered against them. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the statement of witnesses namely, Ram Vilas Diwadi and Ganga Saran Aggarwal, which are Annexure-6 and Annexure-8 to the petition. These statements recorded by the Investigating Officer show that no threat was given by the accused persons to the complainant. Ram Vilas Diwadi is cited as witness by the complainant himself in the first information report. On behalf of respondent No. 2 it is not shown if any of the witnesses relied by him in his complaint ever supported his case before the Investigating Officer. As such, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer rightly submitted the final report. The Magistrate appears to have committed error of law by summoning the accused (present petitioners) for their trial in respect of the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C., only on the protest petition, filed by the complainant. As such, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer rightly submitted the final report. The Magistrate appears to have committed error of law by summoning the accused (present petitioners) for their trial in respect of the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C., only on the protest petition, filed by the complainant. Had there been some evidence on record to make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. against the accused (present petitioners), the Magistrate could be said to have acted within its jurisdiction in summoning the accused persons. In that case, this Court could not have interfered with the proceedings, pending before the trial court, as it is for that court to see whether the accused is guilty, or not? But, in the above circumstances, since, the Magistrate has summoned the accused persons merely on the protest petition and against the evidence on record, as such, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Therefore, the proceedings in criminal complaint case No. 395 of 2005; State Vs. Narendra Mehta and others, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C., registered with police station Ranipur, District Haridwar, pending before II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stands disposed of accordingly. (Stay vacation application No. 896 of 2006 also stands disposed of ).